NO !

NO !

Trump needs all the wiggle room he can get. The only reason that he has not been the direct target of the investigation is because that would create
the appearance that the intelligence and law enforcement agencies were dabbling in politics. By investigating people who came across their radar for
having shady dealings with the Russians they are simply doing their job. Don't think the dealings are shady? Then why deny them until someone provides
evidence they happened? There is a major cover-up going on, and as we know from history, sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.

Trump needs all the wiggle room he can get. The only reason that he has not been the direct target of the investigation is because that would create
the appearance that the intelligence and law enforcement agencies were dabbling in politics. By investigating people who came across their radar for
having shady dealings with the Russians they are simply doing their job. Don't think the dealings are shady? Then why deny them until someone provides
evidence they happened? There is a major cover-up going on, and as we know from history, sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.

Why deny them until someone provides evidence they happened?

Chuckling at the absurdity of that statement.
Maybe he is denying the conspiracy theories because it's total BS and he knows there is no evidence. Just a thought.

Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a conspiracy theory and a criminal investigation. Team Trump is under investigation. It is only a
matter of time before Trump himself will have to testify under oath. He knows that, that's why he is flinging so much poo.

Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a conspiracy theory and a criminal investigation. Team Trump is under investigation. It is only a
matter of time before Trump himself will have to testify under oath. He knows that, that's why he is flinging so much poo.

Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be
collusion? Sounds like some odd logic you have there.

Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a conspiracy theory and a criminal investigation. Team Trump is under investigation. It is only a
matter of time before Trump himself will have to testify under oath. He knows that, that's why he is flinging so much poo.

Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be
collusion? Sounds like some odd logic you have there.

You are desperately trying to frame the situation using words with negative connotations, and making gross innuendos about the nature of events. This
is clearly an attempt to influence others. Please state, flat out, who you are trying to persuade and what you are trying to persuade them of. Your
babbling is getting tedious and annoying, and you are virtually the only person contributing to this and several other threads.

Disclosure: I consider Donald Trump to be the first major global crisis of the twenty-first century. He is mentally ill, and in a position of great
power. The United States is in the midst of a constitutional crisis because of this. Instability in the United States makes the whole world unsafe. We
are on the verge of war with North Korea, something the Kremlin may not have anticipated.

I resent foreign powers manipulating our political process. It is not right when the United States meddles in banana republics, and it is not right
when fascist states meddle here.

I am making a stand here on ATS. It is against T&C to call out other members, but don't think no-one has noticed that some of Trump's most ardent
supporters here were most vocal in defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a conspiracy theory and a criminal investigation. Team Trump is under investigation. It is only a
matter of time before Trump himself will have to testify under oath. He knows that, that's why he is flinging so much poo.

Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be
collusion? Sounds like some odd logic you have there.

You are desperately trying to frame the situation using words with negative connotations, and making gross innuendos about the nature of events. This
is clearly an attempt to influence others. Please state, flat out, who you are trying to persuade and what you are trying to persuade them of. Your
babbling is getting tedious and annoying, and you are virtually the only person contributing to this and several other threads.

Disclosure: I consider Donald Trump to be the first major global crisis of the twenty-first century. He is mentally ill, and in a position of great
power. The United States is in the midst of a constitutional crisis because of this. Instability in the United States makes the whole world unsafe. We
are on the verge of war with North Korea, something the Kremlin may not have anticipated.

I resent foreign powers manipulating our political process. It is not right when the United States meddles in banana republics, and it is not right
when fascist states meddle here.

I am making a stand here on ATS. It is against T&C to call out other members, but don't think no-one has noticed that some of Trump's most ardent
supporters here were most vocal in defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

You said this on another thread.. but back to the question...

Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be
collusion?

Can I assume that your pointless post above, whilst not answering the question, means you don't have an answer?

Can I assume that your pointless post above, whilst not answering the question, means you don't have an answer?

Can I assume that your pointless post above, whilst not answering the question, means you don't have an answer?

Needless to say, I never made the statement you claim I did.

Lol, no answer then.
I figured you were just "desperately trying to frame the situation using words with negative connotations, and making gross innuendos about the nature
of events." when you said quote:

Don't think the dealings are shady? Then why deny them until someone provides evidence they happened? There is a major cover-up going on, and as we
know from history, sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.

I gave you your answer. What part of "I never made the statement you claim I did" did you not understand, Troll? If you can't find where I made that
statement, maybe we can add "liar" to your title. Speaking of answering questions: who are you trying to persuade? You are certainly not persuading
any of the active participants on this thread. I have made my agenda perfectly clear. Yours is also perfectly clear, but you could at least have the
pride to acknowledge it.

I gave you your answer. What part of "I never made the statement you claim I did" did you not understand, Troll? If you can't find where I made that
statement, maybe we can add "liar" to your title. Speaking of answering questions: who are you trying to persuade? You are certainly not persuading
any of the active participants on this thread. I have made my agenda perfectly clear. Yours is also perfectly clear, but you could at least have the
pride to acknowledge it.

Don't think the dealings are shady? Then why deny them until someone provides evidence they happened? There is a major cover-up going on, and as we
know from history, sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.

So' I'll ask again.

Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there must be
collusion?

Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there
must be collusion?

Show me where I said that, Troll. I pointed out that at least two members of his team claimed that they had no contacts with Russian agents. When it
was proven they did, they stepped down. Why deny it if it was innocent? Why don't you answer that question?

Why would Trump denying any collusion and the people involved in the investigation saying there is no evidence of collusion mean that there
must be collusion?

Show me where I said that, Troll. I pointed out that at least two members of his team claimed that they had no contacts with Russian agents. When it
was proven they did, they stepped down. Why deny it if it was innocent? Why don't you answer that question?

I already did show you.

Don't think the dealings are shady? Then why deny them until someone provides evidence they happened? There is a major cover-up going on, and as we
know from history, sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.

This isn't the mud pit by the way. I know you are upset, but hold on the personal stuff.

Done. Three times.
Why not just back up up your wild claims, which looked like "desperately trying to frame the situation using words with negative connotations, and
making gross innuendos about the nature of events.", if you can?

Once again, let's be clear. You keep dredging up a strawman, that I claimed somewhere that denying collusion is proof of collusion. You still have not
done that. Instead, you keep dodging the issue of why Trump followers lied about having contact with the Russians.

The DNC had called in Crowdstrike, a company led by a one Dimitry Alperovich, a Senior Fellow of the NATO aligned "think tank" Atlantic
Council. After a short investigation Crowdstrike claimed to found intruding software on the DNC servers that, it says, has been exclusively used by
Russian intelligence services. From there followed claims that "Russia hacked the U.S. elections".
When the DNC went public with the Crowdstrike claims the FBI never requested access to the servers to determine if a crime had been committed and to
detect the culprit. Access to the servers had been informally denied by the DNC. The FBI simply followed (pdf), without any own forensic investigation
of its own, the conclusions Crowdstrike had made.

That in itself was kind of questionable but Crowdstrike has been found to be fabricating another story .

Month later and in a different case the same Crowdstrike investigators claimed (pdf) that the artillery units of the Ukrainian army had had
"excessive combat losses" of up to 80% in their fight with Ukrainian separatists. Crowdstrike asserted that Russian intelligence hacked an application
used by the Ukrainians to aim their guns.

The hack, it was claimed, enabled well targeted counter-fire that then destroyed the Ukrainian guns. The author of the application denied that any
such hacking had taken place. His software was provided only directly from him to Ukrainian army units. Independent cyber-security researchers also
doubted the claims.

So when it comes to credibility and claims being verified then Crowdstrike pieces should be well salted

It seems that the whole "Ukrainian artillery hack" claims by Crowdstrike was simply made up. There was no "hack" and the claimed damage from
the "hack" did not occur at all. Crowdstrike evidently found a "crime" and "Russian hacking" where none had happened. In the case of the DNC hacking
Crowdstrike also alleged a "crime" and "Russian hacking". No hard evidence was ever provided for that claim, no competent police force ever
investigated the crime scene and serious security researchers found that the Crowdstrike claims were likely taken from hot air.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.